Case 1801630/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Miss Patel, Trainee Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801630/2019
- Decision date
- 7 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Brain in Sheffield on 31 July 2019 in the claim by Ms Louise Kelly against Mr Chris Simmonds and Dr Amanullah Khan t/a The Medical Centre. The tribunal first allowed Ms Kelly to amend her claim form to include a complaint of age discrimination, in the terms of her email of 8 May 2019.
The tribunal also limited the scope of the age discrimination complaint to a comparison between Ms Kelly and Charlotte Wall, described as one of the respondents' employees. The merits of that complaint were not determined at this hearing.
On unfair dismissal, Ms Kelly acknowledged that the claim had been presented outside the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that the questions of whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and if not whether it was presented within a reasonable time, would be determined at the next preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The claimant's application to amend the claim form to include age discrimination succeeded. The amended age discrimination complaint was limited to a comparison with Charlotte Wall, one of the respondents' employees. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the age discrimination complaint at this hearing. | Other | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant acknowledged that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented outside the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal deferred the issues of whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, if not, whether it was presented within a reasonable time, to the next preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- within a reasonable time
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.